Check out my new uber server

[toadlife]

At work we surplused out an old server. Instead of tossing it in the trash, I decided to take it home. It's a Pentium Pro 200/64MB RAM/9GB Quantum 10KRPM SCSI 160 drive. Not exactly a screamer, but it will do as a test web dev server.

My beast:  http://toadlife.kicks-ass.net  

[solemnwarning]

What distro, Debian 3.1 (sarge) rules the servers

[toadlife]

FreeBSD 5.4

[Aloone_Jonez]

solemnwarning , couldn't you tell toadlife is a BSD bitch, isn't his avatar enough to show his opinion that BSD is better than Linux?

A good friend of mine share the same opinion but I prefur Linux as it's easier to use even though BSD may be technically better.

[toadlife]

solemnwarning , couldn't you tell toadlife is a BSD bitch, isn't his avatar enough to show his opinion that BSD is better than Linux?

That's BSD fanboy. linux is BSD's bitch. :D

[Kintaro]

Aloone Jonez I think you made a typo

"Technically Better" is suposed to read "Technically Behind"

[toadlife]

Aloone Jonez I think you made a typo

"Technically Better" is suposed to read "Technically Behind"

But then it would incorrect.

[Kintaro]

But then it would incorrect.

 How is BSD technically better?

[toadlife]

MUCH Better security record

Why?

linux: 19 security vulns in the 2.6.11 kernel since April 6, 2005
FreeBSD: 10 Security vulns in the entire 5.4-RELEASE since April 14, 2005 (3 in just the kernel)
OpenBSD: 6 security vulns in the entire 3.6-RELEASE since April 1, 2005 (


More stable

why?

This is purely anecdotal, but what the hell:
* BSD's owns virtualy all of the longest uptimes at netcraft
* Your linux box has crashed at least one more time than my BSD box has in the past month :p

Faster TCP stack

Why?

FreeBSD has consistently been shown to outperform linux under high networking loads. linux has improved in this area drastically with the advent of the 2.6 kernel


Better integrated firewalls (pf/ipfw2)

Why?

They are every bit as functional, and perform better then ipchains. The syntax of both ipfw2 and pf syntax is MUCH easier to learn than iptables. I've seen my share of iptables scripts..they are scary...I could impliment them in half the lines with ipfw2.


Slightly better file System:

UFS2 supports MUCH larger file sizes and volumes over any linux filesystem.

Also, the BSD's have featured fault tolerant file systems (resitant to power failures/hard resets) many years before linux did.

[mobrien_12]

MUCH Better security record

Why?

linux: 19 security vulns in the 2.6.11 kernel since April 6, 2005
FreeBSD: 10 Security vulns in the entire 5.4-RELEASE since April 14, 2005 (3 in just the kernel)
OpenBSD: 6 security vulns in the entire 3.6-RELEASE since April 1, 2005 (

I gotta agree with that.  I'm starting to get  seriously annoyed at the need to download a new kernel every six weeks or so to keep very serious kernel level security vulnerabilities off of my box.  In contrast, the FreeBSD partition had only a DoS vulnerability in it's kernel.

I don't agree much with your other points though, and the fault tolerant file system argument might have been true many years ago but not any more since there are many journaling file systems available now.

[toadlife]

..but of course, I must concede that linux is techically better than BSD on the desktop.

[toadlife]

I gotta agree with that. I'm starting to get seriously annoyed at the need to download a new kernel every six weeks or so to keep very serious kernel level security vulnerabilities off of my box. In contrast, the FreeBSD partition had only a DoS vulnerability in it's kernel.

I don't agree much with your other points though, and the fault tolerant file system argument might have been true many years ago but not any more since there are many journaling file systems available now.

Yeah ex3fs and resierfs seem to be pretty good. They still can't touch UFS2 on maximum file/voume size though.

[Kintaro]

So what, on volumes that size we can still use XFS, does freeBSD support anything as cool as XFS?

Linux:
* SELinux, providing far more advanced security than even ACL's offer.
* DeviceMapper, providing lots of advantges with filesystem volumes, including crypto and other things, that are bloody difficult to use in freebsd.
* Simple things like cryptoloop.
* More commercial backing.

As for vulnerabilites, they are not usually that severe, and at least they're noticed.

As far as security is concerned, SELinux provides a more advanced approach than any other availible operating system as far as I know.

Note with proformance: Linux has great improvements with premtpive kernel support compiled, otherwise it runs a great deal slower. I have not seen any benchmarks between a recent Linux and a recent FreeBSD release. However I am sure the difference would only be minor

I used to use FreeBSD and it was pretty good. Only thing is keeping the system up to date was a pain, I didn't understand ports that well in that respect. With Fedora its pretty simple when you use apt, and since I don't have a high network load at home, nor do I have massive file volumes, Linux's simplicity is hard to beat. In other words: FreeBSD still offers me nothing.

[toadlife]

So what, on volumes that size we can still use XFS, does freeBSD support anything as cool as XFS?

Woah. I missed that one. XFS looks pretty cool. As for FreeBSD, it's not supported YET.

As far as security is concerned, SELinux provides a more advanced approach than any other availible operating system as far as I know.

Yeah, but does anyone use SELinux? I've never run accross anyone who has.

Note with proformance: Linux has great improvements with premtpive kernel support compiled, otherwise it runs a great deal slower. I have not seen any benchmarks between a recent Linux and a recent FreeBSD release. However I am sure the difference would only be minor

I've seen one recent benchmark. FreeBSD 5.2 vs linux 2.4/2.6. the results were a wash. I would love to see the benchmarks done with 5.4 though, as FreeBSD was undergoing some massive kernel changes between 4.x and 5.x and the early 5.x releases performance suffered a bit as a result.

I used to use FreeBSD and it was pretty good. Only thing is keeping the system up to date was a pain, I didn't understand ports that well in that respect.

Yes, keeping ports up to date can be a bitch.

There is a fairly new utility called portmanager, which I've been using for two months now. It makes keeping your ports up to date as easy as running one command.

With Fedora its pretty simple when you use apt, and since I don't have a high network load at home, nor do I have massive file volumes, Linux's simplicity is hard to beat. In other words: FreeBSD still offers me nothing.

Well it does offer you one more choice, that isn't Windows.

[Kintaro]

Fedora Core 3 ships with SELinux, and its almost a defualt option in the installer. Anyone running Fedora Core 3 who does not realise the option of running SELinux is either blind or just stupid. I run with SELinux. So you have run across someone now.

http://kintaro.noobify.com/drupal/pub/images/Screenshots/SELinux.png

I run CVS to keep my ports upto date on my OpenBSD machine. However how do I just upgrade the ports I have installed automatically? I have no idea. (I should be writing this into the OpenBSD mailing list, as you run FreeBSD)